RE: Creation/evolution3
February 6, 2015 at 2:25 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 2:26 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(February 6, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Drich Wrote: Ahhh, no. Epirical data would be data gather from witnessing a big bang or recreating one. What you have is a theory first, and 'scientist' cramming everything around us to fit that theory, which is the oppsite of 'empirical data.'
Wrong.
Quote: To date, there is no evidence (empirical data) that suggests otherwise.
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/ast...os/bb_evid
(February 6, 2015 at 2:10 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm not saying they are not scientific, I am saying that they are not held to the same standards as the 'science' that goes into flight, cell phones, or medicine. Because nothing can be duplucated or produced to support either theory. Which puts is in the realm of faith.
This passage belies a complete ignorance of historical science. It's a shame we wasted taxpayer dollars trying to educate this dolt.